> if the Level 2 paradigm was flipped, where the driver was always in control, but the semi-automated driving system was doing the monitoring, and was ready to

> if the Level 2 paradigm was flipped, where the driver was always in control, but the semi-automated driving system was doing the monitoring, and was ready to take over [...] but would be less sexy in that the act of driving wouldn’t feel any different I think this is the the most important point of the article and largely ignored here in the comments who seem to focus mostly on who was to blame for this specific accident. We know the strengths and weaknesses of both humans and tech at this point in time. Humans are overall better decision makers but aren't 100% focused 100% of the time. Tech gets confused a lot but is never tired or inattentive. So if your goal is safety you let the humans drive but take over in emergency situations when the human is not reacting. Which is what most car manufacturers do right now. Letting the tech drive and expecting the human to provide perfect reaction time every time the tech fails is playing on the weaknesses of both. This is focusing on cool marketing at the expense of safety.